Ahhh. We knew we liked this pope. Like Jesus, he has incurred the wrath of those who would sit in power by suggesting that those on the bottom be given something. Folks who have a problem with that message of looking out for the poor had better take another look at the gospel and the book of Acts regarding the distribution of funds in the early church. Or have they read Paul’s requests for the haves to send something to the have-nots on his travels? An even scarier thought might come from Matthew 19:30. At the end of the day, GOD will “redistribute” resources the way HE sees fit!

From the beginning, Christianity has been a subversive movement, constantly turning the world upside down, taking one from humble social beginnings to be the Lord. And note, that Christ’s enemies were from the establishment—he had no problem walking among the poor, the outcast, criminals and the like. But, many of the materially rich and religious leaders saw him as a threat.

This new pope’s message mirrors Christ’s request of a would-be follower found in Matthew 19:16-30. We’re not surprised, however, that worldly folks would be critical of that message, especially in this nation of materialistic false Christianity.

The so-called aversion to “forced” redistribution of wealth is a ruse. While the writer talks about how people could be kinder and more giving, he focuses on the “forced” issue rather than making the case that people should willingly do more. Still, give the writer credit because he is dead on about the Catholic Church—and for that matter, all of the rest of them—needing to distribute their assets to the poor, as Christ commanded. But, the argument, “Well, they aren’t doing the right things, so no one else should have to,” doesn’t wash with us.

Christ tells his followers in the above referenced passage that it is hard for those who think they have it all in the worldly sense to give it up—but that is what GOD sometimes requires. We didn’t say it; neither did the pope. Those are Christ’s words. Perhaps the writer of the piece should be honest and attack Christ’s message rather than evading the issue of all society’s—including the churches’—obligation to the poorest of the Master’s sheep. And, when the original word came, they did kill the messenger—but he rose again.

Pope Francis has spent a year on the Throne of Peter. In that time, his modest style and high-minded ideals have ignited a new optimism and fervor among Roman Catholics, including those who left because of disagreements with some of its teachings.

Francis has gone out of his way to voice support for the world’s poorest citizens, rightly noting that their plight is too often ignored or brushed aside. Until this week, his statements have called for voluntary action by wealthier countries and individuals as the right way to relieve economic inequality. He appealed to our better selves, and in so doing, made us all ask if we could be kinder and more generous. The answer, of course, is yes.

On Friday, however, Francis chose a meeting with – of all people — officials of the United Nations to endorse what he called “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician. He also exposed his Church, one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, to inevitable charges of hypocrisy. And he put himself in a position of having to back up his frothy talk with ruinous action.

In the video below, Barry Minniefield delivers a strong blind-audition take on “Me and Mrs. Jones” on The Voice on March 2. Scroll down to see an interview with Barry about his audition, landing on Team Adam and the road ahead. Click here to read more. . Watch the interview with Barry about his audition, […]

Retired Indiana State Police Officer Terry Lymon delivers a very passionate, yet intellectual plea on the importance of black men knowing their constitutional rights. Mr. Lymon suggests that some corrupt officers use your ignorance of your rights against you. If the police know or think that you may know your rights, that may eliminate or lessen their potential deviant behavior against you.